• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Son of Man -VS- Son of God

Nefelie

Member
.

Simple question for everyone interested:

Jesus prefered to call himself "the Son of Man" ... even though he did it in the third person, so maybe he didn't even mean just himself... hmm...

Others prefer to call him "the Son of God"...

So, was he the Son of Man or the Son of God? And what's the difference?

.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
.

Simple question for everyone interested:

Jesus prefered to call himself "the Son of Man" ... even though he did it in the third person, so maybe he didn't even mean just himself... hmm...

Others prefer to call him "the Son of God"...

So, was he the Son of Man or the Son of God? And what's the difference?

.

Son of man is bar Nasha. Human. It's not only used by Jesus. It's cited around eighty times in the old testament. Ben Adam.
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
The Son of Man, or sons of Adam, are gods according to the Most High. Jesus reiterates by revealing that the Father is not a judge, but that instead, mankind is given judgement. According to the prophets, it is not always good judgment.

So what does it mean? It means that for the Son of Man, the knowledge of good and evil are consumed together. The wisdom produced is the energy received, and maintained, from said consumption.

Son of God refers to anyone and anything. According to Jeremiah, all flesh from least to greatest, have known God. I'm telling you, that today it is known that we are in common with all things. We evolved from a singularity.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Son of Man -VS- Son of God

Jesus was neither a son of man because he did not have a literal and physical father, nor he was a son of god in literal and physical terms. Jesus talked in parables so he meant none of them. He was only son of Mary his mother, in literal and physical terms.

Jesus was also not god, G-d was never so poor and weak to be hanged on Cross, cursed and humiliated. Right? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards
 

Meander_Z

Member
Self sacrifice is not an act of poverty or weakness but an act of power, which brought about a global shift in religious thinking.

Specifically the ideas in Gnostic Christianity understood Jesus not as a savior in the traditional sense, but rather embraced the idea that Jesus was an example born to lead all humans toward discovering their own hidden divinity. It followed very closely in the footsteps of the pagan mystery cults that were popular in Greece and Rome at the time of Jesus's birth (traditions that also taught that humans were part divine, and could learn to access that divinity during life and after death). Of course the Gnostics were mostly killed off as heretics by the Catholic church, but speculation based on Gnostic principles became the basis for stories like "The Da Vinci Code" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." The scholarship is pretty poor in those stories, but the ideas really seem to capture peoples imaginations.

I've read some pretty convincing arguments that JC was probably familiar with pagan mysticism and intentionally incorporated its symbolism into his teachings. If this is true, he may have intended to create a religion that is more like ancient Gnosticism than modern Catholicism or Protestantism. Unfortunately there is too little solid information to do much more than speculate.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
.

Simple question for everyone interested:

Jesus prefered to call himself "the Son of Man" ... even though he did it in the third person, so maybe he didn't even mean just himself... hmm...

Others prefer to call him "the Son of God"...

So, was he the Son of Man or the Son of God? And what's the difference?

.

I am assuming that when Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man, he is saying he is the servant of mankind because he died for believers. Son of God is used because it was god that blessed this man unto his mission to die for believers.

So God sent the son of man to die on the cross. While on earth, he was the son of man to himself and others because he was a servant (or child) to the people who would die for.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Jews considered themselves to be "sons of God", but the terminology "son of man", depending on context, was sometimes viewed as being a messianic reference.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Son of Man -VS- Son of God

Jesus was neither a son of man because he did not have a literal and physical father, nor he was a son of god in literal and physical terms. Jesus talked in parables so he meant none of them. He was only son of Mary his mother, in literal and physical terms.

Jesus was also not god, G-d was never so poor and weak to be hanged on Cross, cursed and humiliated. Right? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards

Before you say this, you must understand what son of man is. Jesus was human. Son of man means human.

Adam didn't have a physical father. But he was human. Son of man is the language, not to say you are a physical son of man.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
.

Simple question for everyone interested:

Jesus prefered to call himself "the Son of Man" ... even though he did it in the third person, so maybe he didn't even mean just himself... hmm...

Others prefer to call him "the Son of God"...

So, was he the Son of Man or the Son of God? And what's the difference?

.
Jesus was born as a man, and was fully human, not a God-man as some claim. His calling himself the son of man identifies him as fulfilling prophecy such as Daniel 7:13,14. The designation “Son of God” indicates he was of divine origin, not descended from the sinner Adam, IMO.—Mt 16:13-17.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Jesus was born as a man, and was fully human, not a God-man as some claim. His calling himself the son of man identifies him as fulfilling prophecy such as Daniel 7:13,14. The designation “Son of God” indicates he was of divine origin, not descended from the sinner Adam, IMO.—Mt 16:13-17.

Then is Ephraim his elder brother?
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Before you say this, you must understand what son of man is. Jesus was human. Son of man means human.
Adam didn't have a physical father. But he was human. Son of man is the language, not to say you are a physical son of man.
Your understanding of "son of man" is correct about Jesus, but the Christians take Jesus as literal and physical the usage "son of god" "son of man", both have identical first two words , if one is symbolic the other should also be. NT Gospels does not say "Jesus son of Mary", which he was. Does it? Please
Adam did have father and mother.
Regards
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Your understanding of "son of man" is correct about Jesus, but the Christians take Jesus as literal and physical the usage "son of god" "son of man", both have identical first two words , if one is symbolic the other should also be. NT Gospels does not say "Jesus son of Mary", which he was. Does it? Please
Adam did have father and mother.
Regards

Son of man and son of God, Ben Adam and ben elohim are not synonymous at the outset of it, even by the looks of it. E.g. Ezekiel 33:2, God refers to Ezekiel as Son of Man. Sometimes it is directly addressed at one person, e.g. Ezekiel. It has various usages.

You have to understand the language. The beauty of it. Ben is not only Son. It could mean a member of a society, grandson etc. Like Little in many Asian languages. Anyway, you must do your own study.

But what I am curious about is, you said "Please, Adam did have father and mother". Whats your belief on this and from where I would like to know.
 

Nefelie

Member
It means that for the Son of Man, the knowledge of good and evil are consumed together.

I like this point of view. Never thought about it this way. Thanks :)

Self sacrifice is not an act of poverty or weakness but an act of power…

True :)

…which brought about a global shift in religious thinking.

Self sacrifice was not something new for the world. May I remind you of Dionysus Zagreas that every Spring he was sacrificing himself for the good of the world and was then consumed by his believers -bread and wine for body and blood, hence the Holy Communion later in Christianity.

The world was just ready for a religious shift, that’s all. So, the same things where presented again in another way.
I think it was more of a “purification and revival” of the religions, as they where getting in a very materialistic and egocentric. It was an attempt to return to the roots and the basics. Hence the deep relation with much older religions.

Specifically the ideas in Gnostic Christianity understood Jesus not as a savior in the traditional sense, but rather embraced the idea that Jesus was an example born to lead all humans toward discovering their own hidden divinity. It followed very closely in the footsteps of the pagan mystery cults that were popular in Greece and Rome at the time of Jesus's birth (traditions that also taught that humans were part divine, and could learn to access that divinity during life and after death). Of course the Gnostics were mostly killed off as heretics by the Catholic church, but speculation based on Gnostic principles became the basis for stories like "The Da Vinci Code" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." The scholarship is pretty poor in those stories, but the ideas really seem to capture peoples imaginations.

Exactly ;)

I've read some pretty convincing arguments that JC was probably familiar with pagan mysticism and intentionally incorporated its symbolism into his teachings. If this is true, he may have intended to create a religion that is more like ancient Gnosticism than modern Catholicism or Protestantism. Unfortunately there is too little solid information to do much more than speculate.

Yes, it’s true. And some of these arguments you can find in the Secret Mark Gospel and in the Acts of John, the part that is called “Hymn of Jesus” (Gnostic ones, of course).

In Secret Mark, the event with Lazarus is described differently, in a way that it seems that Lazarus was not dead to start with but rather paniced during an initiation.

In the “Hymn of Jesus”, who ever reads this part and has some knowledge of mysticism, s/he will recognize various older mystic ceremonies in it.

...I’m sorry that I don’t have time for more details now. I’ll get back on that subject with more, later :)

Ben is not only Son.

“Ben” is father, not son.

.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
“Ben” is father, not son.

Nefelie. I do not wish to embarrass you but I wish people dont just blurt things out like this with out checking up.

I am no expert in the Hebrew language but this is elementary for any bible student. I dont have the font. Here is an image FYI.

Benei.gif


Thats Benei for Benei elohim, Sons of God. Plural. Genesis 6 says "the sons of God saw that these daughters were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose".

Not Father of God.

And Ben Adam is not Father of Adam or God, its Son of man or human.

Ben is like ibn in Arabic. Benei is like Bani in Arabic. Bani Israela is children of Israel.

Father is Ab. Same as Arabic.

Peace.
 
Top